| |
Main
Date: 08 Apr 2007 23:46:59
From: The Tman
Subject: Mickelson on 18...Breach?
|
We're having a discussion on this elsewhere, just wondering about the
input in here.
In case you didn't see it, here is the vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsFqTEVTNLY
The issue was already resolved at the Masters, so it's really academic
at this point.They determined there was no breach, but some feel that
ruling is rather questionable, and that there was no way they were
going to DQ the defending champ for something like this.
But the question is, how would you rule? Was Mickelson in breach of
14-2(a). Most germaine decision: 14-2/3, and somewhat relevant:
14-2/4.
-T
|
|
| |
Date: 10 Apr 2007 00:36:30
From: johnty
Subject: Re: Mickelson on 18...Breach?
|
On 9 Apr, 04:46, The Tman <t...@tman.com > wrote:
> We're having a discussion on this elsewhere, just wondering about the
> input in here.
>
> In case you didn't see it, here is the vid:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsFqTEVTNLY
>
> The issue was already resolved at the Masters, so it's really academic
> at this point.They determined there was no breach, but some feel that
> ruling is rather questionable, and that there was no way they were
> going to DQ the defending champ for something like this.
>
> But the question is, how would you rule? Was Mickelson in breach of
> 14-2(a). Most germaine decision: 14-2/3, and somewhat relevant:
> 14-2/4.
>
If dec 16-2/3 is ok, then this is, don't you think?
|
| |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 12:24:09
From:
Subject: Re: Mickelson on 18...Breach?
|
On 9 Apr, 18:09, "Martin Levac" <v...@REMOVEvideotron.ca > wrote:
> The answer lies in who put the bag there. If it's him, there's no fault. If
> it's his caddy, there is fault. So, who put the bag there?
There's absolutely no difference between these cases. The RoG are
explicit about that.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 18:48:18
From: The Tman
Subject: Re: Mickelson on 18...Breach?
|
Agree, no distinction between the player and caddie in a situation
like this. Short of lifting and actually taking a stroke at the ball,
there is not a lot that the player can do that the caddie cannot.
On 9 Apr 2007 12:24:09 -0700, sugnaboris@gmail.com wrote:
>> The answer lies in who put the bag there. If it's him, there's no fault. If
>> it's his caddy, there is fault. So, who put the bag there?
>
>There's absolutely no difference between these cases. The RoG are
>explicit about that.
|
| |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 04:16:38
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Mickelson on 18...Breach?
|
In article <dadj1358m7u8kg8vhjd865mokhpfgurs34@4ax.com >,
The Tman <tman@tman.com > wrote:
> We're having a discussion on this elsewhere, just wondering about the
> input in here.
>
> In case you didn't see it, here is the vid:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsFqTEVTNLY
>
> The issue was already resolved at the Masters, so it's really academic
> at this point.They determined there was no breach, but some feel that
> ruling is rather questionable, and that there was no way they were
> going to DQ the defending champ for something like this.
>
> But the question is, how would you rule? Was Mickelson in breach of
> 14-2(a). Most germaine decision: 14-2/3, and somewhat relevant:
> 14-2/4.
>
> -T
It's a fine line, I'd say, but I *think* Phil's on the right side of it.
Rule 14-2 says:
"In making a stroke,a player must not:
(a) Accept physical assistance or protection from the elements;"
And decision 14-2/3 says that if a player's caddie stands so as to keep
the sun out of his or her eyes, then that's a breach of the rule.
Decision 14-2/4 is talking about the second part of the rule: standing
on an extension of the line and that clearly doesn't come into play here.
But putting a shadow from his bag over the ball is not protecting the
*player* from the elements. And moreover, since the purpose of the
shadow was to ensure that spectators shadows weren't moving around while
Phil played his stroke, all it was protecting him from was "outside
agencies".
--
"The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
"I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
|
| | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 10:40:58
From: AKA gray asphalt
Subject: Re: Mickelson on 18...Breach?
|
Needs a decision for future rulings. Could go either way, no? The 'purpose'
of the act isn't always taken into consideration, as when Stadler, was it,
put down a towel to keep his pants from getting dirty, and was penalized for
building a stance. Having the ball in the shade would be an advantage
sometimes, other times not. I wonder why it Phil would do such an unusual
thing. It seems kind of asking for trouble.
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote in message
news:alangbaker-65F7ED.21163708042007@news.telus.net...
> In article <dadj1358m7u8kg8vhjd865mokhpfgurs34@4ax.com>,
> The Tman <tman@tman.com> wrote:
>
>> We're having a discussion on this elsewhere, just wondering about the
>> input in here.
>>
>> In case you didn't see it, here is the vid:
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsFqTEVTNLY
>>
>> The issue was already resolved at the Masters, so it's really academic
>> at this point.They determined there was no breach, but some feel that
>> ruling is rather questionable, and that there was no way they were
>> going to DQ the defending champ for something like this.
>>
>> But the question is, how would you rule? Was Mickelson in breach of
>> 14-2(a). Most germaine decision: 14-2/3, and somewhat relevant:
>> 14-2/4.
>>
>> -T
>
> It's a fine line, I'd say, but I *think* Phil's on the right side of it.
>
> Rule 14-2 says:
>
> "In making a stroke,a player must not:
> (a) Accept physical assistance or protection from the elements;"
>
> And decision 14-2/3 says that if a player's caddie stands so as to keep
> the sun out of his or her eyes, then that's a breach of the rule.
> Decision 14-2/4 is talking about the second part of the rule: standing
> on an extension of the line and that clearly doesn't come into play here.
>
> But putting a shadow from his bag over the ball is not protecting the
> *player* from the elements. And moreover, since the purpose of the
> shadow was to ensure that spectators shadows weren't moving around while
> Phil played his stroke, all it was protecting him from was "outside
> agencies".
>
> --
> "The iPhone doesn't have a speaker phone" -- "I checked very carefully" --
> "I checked Apple's web pages" -- Edwin on the iPhone and how he missed
> the demo of the iPhone speakerphone.
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Apr 2007 13:09:06
From: Martin Levac
Subject: Re: Mickelson on 18...Breach?
|
"AKA gray asphalt" <goodidea1950@hotmail.spam.com > wrote in message
news:f2uSh.155668$p17.65286@newsfe11.phx...
>
> Needs a decision for future rulings. Could go either way, no? The
> 'purpose' of the act isn't always taken into consideration, as when
> Stadler, was it, put down a towel to keep his pants from getting dirty,
> and was penalized for building a stance. Having the ball in the shade
> would be an advantage sometimes, other times not. I wonder why it Phil
> would do such an unusual thing. It seems kind of asking for trouble.
>
> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-65F7ED.21163708042007@news.telus.net...
>> In article <dadj1358m7u8kg8vhjd865mokhpfgurs34@4ax.com>,
>> The Tman <tman@tman.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We're having a discussion on this elsewhere, just wondering about the
>>> input in here.
>>>
>>> In case you didn't see it, here is the vid:
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BsFqTEVTNLY
>>>
>>> The issue was already resolved at the Masters, so it's really academic
>>> at this point.They determined there was no breach, but some feel that
>>> ruling is rather questionable, and that there was no way they were
>>> going to DQ the defending champ for something like this.
>>>
>>> But the question is, how would you rule? Was Mickelson in breach of
>>> 14-2(a). Most germaine decision: 14-2/3, and somewhat relevant:
>>> 14-2/4.
>>>
>>> -T
>>
>> It's a fine line, I'd say, but I *think* Phil's on the right side of it.
>>
>> Rule 14-2 says:
>>
>> "In making a stroke,a player must not:
>> (a) Accept physical assistance or protection from the elements;"
>>
>> And decision 14-2/3 says that if a player's caddie stands so as to keep
>> the sun out of his or her eyes, then that's a breach of the rule.
>> Decision 14-2/4 is talking about the second part of the rule: standing
>> on an extension of the line and that clearly doesn't come into play here.
>>
>> But putting a shadow from his bag over the ball is not protecting the
>> *player* from the elements. And moreover, since the purpose of the
>> shadow was to ensure that spectators shadows weren't moving around while
>> Phil played his stroke, all it was protecting him from was "outside
>> agencies".
>>
>> --
The answer lies in who put the bag there. If it's him, there's no fault. If
it's his caddy, there is fault. So, who put the bag there?
|
|
